Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Aclu Hb121 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missoula County approves joining ACLU lawsuit over House Bill 121, designates Chris Lounsbury as Rule 30(b)(6) designee
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners voted to accept an offer from the ACLU to represent Missoula County pro bono in Casey Perkins v. State of Montana, a challenge tied to House Bill 121, and designated Chris Lounsbury as the county's Rule 30(b)(6) designee to serve as the county's point of contact in discovery.
Missoula County commissioners voted to accept a pro bono representation offer from the ACLU of Montana and LegalVoice in Casey Perkins v. State of Montana, a case tied to House Bill 121, and designated Chris Lounsbury as the county's Rule 30(b)(6) designee.
County staff described the ACLU's offer as free representation for the county in the litigation and recommended joining the ACLU's existing case as the most efficient route to protect the county's interests. The board moved and seconded the authorization; commissioners voted "aye" to approve both joining the lawsuit and designating Lounsbury as the Rule 30(b)(6) designee.
The county presenter told commissioners, "The offer again is to represent the county pro bono," and said there would be "no cost to us unless there were some sort of sanctions or fees issued by the court for noncompliance," which staff described as unlikely. The presenter said if plaintiffs prevail and attorney fees are awarded, those fees would be sought by ACLU and LegalVoice to reimburse their costs.
County staff framed the recommendation as twofold: (1) accept ACLU/LegalVoice representation and join the existing litigation rather than file a separate suit, and (2) designate a county official to respond to discovery and serve as the county's contact in the case. The board's vote carried; commissioners also approved a separate motion to designate Chris Lounsbury as the Rule 30(b)(6) designee so he can coordinate records and discovery responses.
Discussion versus formal action: commissioners discussed options earlier (either file their own suit or join existing litigation), and staff advised joining the ACLU's litigation; the board's formal actions were (1) authorization to accept the ACLU's offer and (2) designation of Lounsbury as the county's Rule 30(b)(6) representative. No additional financial appropriation was made at the time; staff said the representation would be pro bono absent unusual court-ordered fees.
What happens next: with the designation in place, staff said the county would coordinate with ACLU and LegalVoice on discovery and information-sharing. Commissioners did not set additional conditions or a follow-up schedule in the recorded discussion.
Ending: The actions record the county as a participant in the ACLU-led litigation. Staff flagged sanctions or court-ordered fees as the only plausible cost exposure; none were anticipated in the presentation.
